Evolution

how do you argue against evolutionists as a christian?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/lIEoO5KdPvg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Evolution is a red herring. Christians have a much better chance attacking Abiogenesis.

You can't, unless you're an uneducated dimwit. I mean you can, but you're still wrong.

Every alternative that a species can have, as in feather colours or skin tone already exists within that species.

You do not see a chicken with a goats leg, god did not create this to happen.

No evidence of transitional forms. Masons only push this because they were fashioned from apes by the Devil. They only look human.

...

>You do not see a chicken with a goats leg, god did not create this to happen.
A chicken with a goats leg would disprove evolution if anything.

There is no natural explanation for it thereby evolution would be false and some other explanation would be needed (maybe even a religious one if given enough evidence).

Looks like a nice guy desu. We're so mean to black peoples.

Don't waste your time, evolution is a fact, and don't post half a darwin quote because evolutionists will see through the deception.

Ooga booga shut up nigger

if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

in the bible, sheep, have been the same in the 6000 years, since the creation of them (not going to get into creationism) how have they been the same since
>muh millions of years
they literally are a religion if they (((believe))) that we (((evolved))) into what we are today. its just another type of religious front

1. Because we evolved from common ancestor both, not we from monkeys
2. Because evolution takes more time than 6 thousands years to give noticeable effects
...unless it's bacteria

By ignoring reality.

what you are saying is neither wrong or right, but still very misinformed
its not pure belief, the belief is built around the evidence of what we know to be fact, unlike religion.
I sincerely hope this is bait. if not I wish you the best in your ignorant life

> not going to get into creationism

i dont blame ya, retard

Evolution is a fact. Christianity is a fairy tale. How can an idiot who believes in fairy tales argue against anything?

...

Atheists btfo

1. If the multiverse doesn't exist, there is sufficient scientific reason to believe life is impossible.
2. Stephen Hawking and many other science cucks are advocates for the existence of the multiverse for this reason.
3. If there is an infinite number of universes with random properties, which the multiverse entails, all possibilities exist.
4. If all possibilities exist, God exists.
5. If God exists in any universe, being God, He necessarily exists in all universes.
6. If scientists like Steven Hawking are right about the existence of the multiverse, then, ironically, God exists.

Your memes are edgy, but not everyone is as retarded as the Americans.

Well done. You have figured that infinity = God. Most people only realise that as a fleeting observation as part of a psychedelic trip.

1. The fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. Proponents of the anthropic principle assume that because observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life -- which is a modal scope fallacy, i.e. it equivocates the necessity of the universe if conscious and sapient life that observes it exists, with modal necessity, i.e. it confuses "necessary if" and "necessary."
3. All physical things have a logical cause.
4. All logically-caused things are contingent, i.e. it is possible for them not to be caused.
5. Therefore, all physical things are contingent.
6. The fundamental physical constants are a physical thing.
7. Therefore, the fundamental physical constants are contingent.
8. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity, and the universe, as it is, is not the only possible world.
9. There is an infinite number of possible worlds in which the fine-tuning of the universe and all its antecedents do not exist or are in an infinite number of different states.
10. Therefore, the probability of a possible world in which the fundamental constants exist and fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life is ℵ_0/ℵ_0^2 (tends to 0).
11. Therefore, the probability that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance is ℵ_0/ℵ_0^2.
12. n/n^2=1/n
13. Therefore, the probability that the fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance is (ℵ_0 - 1)/ℵ_0 (tends to 1).
14. Therefore, it is due to design

The only way you can.
>tipsfedoratipsfedoratipsfedoratipsfedoratipsfedoratipsfedora (actually a trilby)

>infinite universes
>designed universes
Nope.

>God didn't have a hand in changing us from single cell organisms, into the humans of today.

>pic semi-related

Evolution has been skewed anyway by inverting the laws of nature.

>“The problem with a society aimed at only growing more consumers is obvious - it drags the strong down and halts, even reverses, evolution. Survival of the Fittest is inverted because the weak are better consumers. Consequently all the worst elements are preserved and protected, all the best elements are discouraged. Intelligence, resourcefulness, originality, curiosity - all the elements of the human brain that made us successful animals on this planet have been bred out of us.”

>Evolution is a red herring.
More like a strawman. Only slightly more believable than their "muh flat earthers" argument.

Evolution doesn't exis - says the jew worshiping Christian mulatto.

Then what explain yourself

Christ faggot detected.

Yes goy, please ignore the fact that the Jews hate Christ so much it's part of the word kike's origin

>Claims Earth is 8000 years old, questions evolution
>Doesn't question lineage of 900 year olds used to prove said age of earth
kek

One Jewish puppet is supposed insult Christian

>Jews jew other jews
wow
did you figure that out all by yourself?
Doesn't change the fact that Jesus was a commie and a kike

Americn education

CHRIST FAG BTFO

Premise 5 is evidently false.
see: radioactive decay
Also there is no reason to assume that our universe is the only possible one capable of sustaining life.

And the most based Jew ever to exist and he die for you remember and if your don't love him he still loves you

Only a Jew would promote semitic desert cult called (((christianity))) in white nationalist board. Get the fuck outta here kike! pol is not a degenerate Christian board, this is a white nationalist heretic board.

It always triggers me when people think that everything they know is final and there's not gonna be anything new that changes thousands of years of thinking.

We do not understand how universe fully works, so denying everything we have already found out and sticking to 2 thousand year old book seems to be the answer because humans NEED TO KNOW where the fuck everything came from.
I'd consider religion as an easiest option. You don't have to research furthermore, everything's written and told already.
God is the EASY option to pick. Evolution is hardmode because not all answers are present.

Implying you can't get a movie made without Jews permission

This kills the christfag

Hey guys? I'm fed up with Christianity. I'm joining up with the only side really willing to take a stand against degeneracy. Islam is the future. Your religion is crumbling.

You cannot really, you are literally trying to use ''god done did it'' as an argument and assuming from the start your vision of the world is correct and proven, and that evolutionists must prove a negative on top of proving their point.

You don't. Creationism and evolution not only does not contradict each other, they back each other up. Just don't take Genesis in the most literal sense. 1 day for God is billions of years for earth. Even the chronological order for evolution and creation adds up.

Making boring movies about a bible character to steal gullible Christfags money... yes, very merchant

Kek nice try Jew divide and conquer tactics but I'm on too you

Fuck out of here bitch. This thing proves you wrong.

Implying your not gullible to by video games, movies from the Jews because I bet you have and I bet you still do

Natural selection denial predicts sub-100 IQ with 80% accuracy.

I totally forgot Batman was Jesus

deus vult my ass

...

what if evolution is just the method God used to make humans?

Allahu Akbar my friend.

You can't. Its been shown in practice at this point using fruit fly samples.

T. Jamaal Christensen

Please. No God but Allah.

>how do you argue against evolutionists as a christian?

How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

> evolution is a theory
No, evolution is a fact. It can be demonstrated right now, on a petri dish or in any observable ecosystem. The current theory that explains evolution, Neodarwinism, is a scientifical theory. In science, theory means different from our daily usage of the word. A theory in science fields is backed up by compelling evidences, demonstrations and proofs. Hypothesis is the world you're referring to when you mean an idea that has yet to be proven.
What separates facts from theory is purely ontology. A fact is such harsh irrefutable statement that it is almost like a primitive concept in mathematics. A point in space.
Think of gravity. Things fall. That is the fact. Theory of universal gravity is Newton's work on the matter. Although purely mathematical, it can be demonstrated in practice. He described gravity as a force directly proportional to the the masses of the bodies involved, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This concept is completely theoretical, still, completely right. It was used to get the man to the moon, although it doesn't fully describe all events on the universe. General relativity does a better job at grasping cosmic events, and it described gravity as a bending in the very fabric of space-time caused by an uneven, heterogeneous distribution of energy (mass) throughout the universe. When lights is affected by gravity, it's not actually interacting with the gravitational force, which is impossible since bosons are massless and do not interact with gravitational fields. It is simply and quite literally falling into the space -time bending created by gravity as it passes through. All of this is "merely theoretical" but in science that's a synonymous for "truth" or our best version of Truth so far to explain the events observable in the universe. Science changes and constantly reshapes itself, the opposite of the religions.

Cont
Our understanding of evolution may yet suffer great shifts in the future, according to the new discoveries of researchers. But for daily effects, the speciation derivation is a fact. Most life forms on our planet descended from very similar simple unicellular individuals. Most likely, all life on earth derived from a single prokaryotic organism capable of producing polypeptides chains from encoded information in the shape of long polymers of nucleotides, and thus being able to duplicate itself into the future and possibly the into perpetual existence before entropy got the best of it, dissipating its orderly form.
You can argue your way out of this knowledge as much ad you can argue your way out of gravity. In other words, you can just keep being a dumb ignorant fuck

>Most likely, all life on earth derived from a single prokaryotic organism capable of producing polypeptides chains from encoded information in the shape of long polymers of nucleotides, and thus being able to duplicate itself into the future and possibly the into perpetual existence before entropy got the best of it, dissipating its orderly form.

My man

To sum it up
>science is wrong a lot and we have to correct it often
Please consider using your "brilliant" mind to see the effects of religion on cultural adhesiveness and society.
>then look at what embracing nihilism and degeneracy does
Theory means the same thing.
The sun going around the earth was a theory that was evidenced too.

>haha the earth is flat you fool! It's easily observable fact!
>owaitfuck

kys flat-earther

Why would you argue against evolution as a Christian? If you interpret the bible literally you're a retard and not a Christian because you have no fucking idea whats going on

But... do you really need to argue with evolutionists? Like... if it's your true belief in what is written in the Bible all the people who don't believe in it are doesn't matter at all. They will all burn in hell eventually, why bother?

No transitional forms, no explanation for precambrian explosion, no explanation for abiogenesis, uses a faulty unscientific philisophical premise (unless you prove me wrong, this is how it happened). It is a theory, not a scientific one as science requires experimentation and observation which evolution has none of.

>inb4 "yeah but creationism is retarded"
If you actually want to act like you are a scientist, you should know that debunking a false theory does not require an alternative theory. It simply requires showing the faults in the theory in question and evolution has many. To jump to the creationism argument when it hasn't been brought up is nothing but a strawman hoping to salvage a lost argument

>if you argue with what i declare a fact, you are retarded.
There was a time when discussion on evolution were interesting. Your caliber of "argument" and announcing of personal beliefs doesn't reach that point.

Yes but, if the multimeter theory is correct then there is also a universe where God does NOT exist. Schroedingers Deity, if you will.

Of course the multiverse theory is purely theoretical, not even based on weird mathematical outcomes like black and white holes. Once you start espousing multiversal theory you are into the realm of belief, along with the religious.

Evidenced by outright simplistic empiria?
> Science is wrong a lot
Science, a product of men, commits mistakes. Mistakes are actually the second most fundamental step of science, the first being observation. Science is both an investigation tool and a language that describes the unknown,the mysteries of the phenomenons around the universe. The fact that it is widely open to changes and advances is actually a very positive aspect of science. And what makes it so far superior to any religion.
But often science is not wrong as you say it. The progress is a continuous work of discoveries. The newer theories don't necessarily discredit the old ones. The opposite. Many times the earlier understandings were necessary for the continuous process that is knowledge building. Newton didn't affirm his predecessors were wrong. Quite the contrary. It's his the famous line "If I was able to see further, it is because I stood in the shoulders of giants". Knew scientifical knowledge many times simply acress, adds or completes a previous idea. Einstein didn't debunked Newton's theory of gravity. He extended our knowledge about gravity into realms that Newton could not yet reach. Still, it's Newtonian physics that is used to get our satellites and spaceships running.
Lamarck, in biology. For centuries we thought him to be wrong about his law of heirloom of acquired characters, and only now we are beginning to grasp the truths behind epigenetics, which may prove to be the neolamarckism in the future. For decades Mendel Works were neglected because no one, not even mendel himself, had a single grasp of genetics at their times. Only after the advances of electronic microscopy we were able to confirm theories of this scientist that lived more than a century before. The same thing goes for Uncle albert, who predicted the existence of gravitational waves, and the behavior of near absolute zero matter a century before we could actually see those concepts in practice.

Because I'd rather they not drag other people down with them. Evolution is frequently trotted out as proof that there is no need for anything beyond the physical, so it is important to reveil that 'proof' to be the absurdity that it is.

To be clear, I do not deny that evolution exists. I do, however, fail to see how the system so given to kluge-jobs and destructive 'fixes' can be seen as such a creative force as to turn a single cell into the myriad life forms we see today.

You use a lot of words to say very little. It's like reading a fluffed out essay.

I stand against evolution simply on the basis of its lack of scientific proof (a scientist claiming it is proven is not proof) as well as its faults (many listed in posts above).

> Positive aspects of religion in social adhesiveness
It may have served a purpose when it first arose, 20 thousand years ago in our Neolithic tribes. The cohesion you speak of might as well be a product of a culture, not a religion, the difference being that religion is only a single aspect of the broader spectrum that is cultural envelopment.
I'm surprised you brought religion in the table this way. For centuries now, it is very clear that religion, with its powerful tools of fear mongering and fanaticism, is currently doing much more harm than good to the world. Actually incrementing the same tensions and hates that have fueled wars for all our history. Certainly a civilized society has passed a point, in our current state of affairs, where religion is necessary to keep said society healthy. Now we have many better alternatives for that, mainly the law. It might have served its purpose so far, only resisting as reminder of a past we ought to leave behind. But that's completely unrelated to the topic of science, Don't know why you brought that up. Perhaps you live in a place so plagued by malevolence and banditism that your people still need the idea of a supernatural higher judging entity to keep them from murdering one another.

you don't, unless you're just dying to come out as a retarded christfag to people

It was invented by a Freemason.

But in the end, we have more pressing problems.

Wew so many people on this website deny evolution and global warming. I would love to see the country these people make, they'll be like Apes at the Zoo. We'll study them for science so we can understand mental disorders.

Well, I am convinced, there MUST be a magical sandnigger up there in space.


kys faggot.

Actually there are a great number of evidence for evolution. You can easily view them first hand if you live near a great natural history museum.
But you also seem to be confused. In the beginning of your post you are not talking about evolution, you are talking about the origin of life. The origin of life is a very different topic precisely because it requires a lot of speculation and a serious scarcity of evidences of an event that happened 4 billion years ago. That's why, if you open a biology text book right now (which I think has been untouched by your hands for a very long time) you should see that the section referring to origin of life will quote a series of topics named hypothesis, each one with their own consistencies and contradictions. There's the famous pair, abiogenesis and biogenesis, there's panspermia (extraterrestrial forms of organic life arriving through asteroids) and even one or two small paragraphs about creationism, which is also a cosmogeny hypothesis. Many people, though, think that a creationist hypothesis is "god made it" when that's a nasty appropriation. Most authors refer to creationism as a hypothesis based on intelligent design perpetrated by unknown or supernatural influences. Creationism is refuted for the same reason that abiogenesis was once refuted. It's impossible to observe or replicate, utterly unfalsifiable. Abiogenesis is accepted as most likely nowadays because we managed to recreate primitive earth conditions on laboratories, and lead the primitive organic juice up until the point of coacervates, which is farther beyond any other hypothesis we had before. How the coacervates developed into the first prokaryote, it is still a mystery, which curiously enough, given this is science, only further compels us to research and study even more, so we could asymptomatic reach a more refined explanation, closer to the truth, if there's one.

Simple: people will often challenge things that you cannot prove. Evolution and CC are not 'hard' like more accepted theories are. You cannot say 'these predict that experiment x will return y' like you can relativity. They cannot be falsified as any data can be made to fit, and so they cannot be proven to the satisfaction of those who would doubt it.

Have you read the Bible? What's said about those who're denying Christ? They're going to be punished and that's not your deal, you're here not to judge but be patient and follow the Book.

Ah, that's it. Evolution in fact isn't seen creative, it's misconception. Evolution itself has nothing to with creativity or variety. It's not even an instrument. It's just a concept that if mutation helps it will stick.

Amount of variation depends on how many ways to effectively solve one particular problem exists.

This video is overly simplistic, but it's also very didactic, perfect for beginners. Sometimes I show it in my classes when I have some spare time, which is mot very frequent unfortunately. You should watch it. It lists a vast number of evidences for evolution regarding whales. It's an isolated group of animals but it's very interesting to see how the evidences work in practice. You should give it a go:
youtu.be/lIEoO5KdPvg

There are many many evidences of evolution, I don't get it when people say there are no evidences... It's the same of saying "i Haven't searched for them". They are right there, a middle school text book contains a decent variety.

You are probably underestimating the vast amount of time those changes had to occur. More than 3 billion years. The greatest evidence for the common ancestry for all life forms on earth lies on biochemistry and cytology rather than microscopic fossils. Not only the cell is the common unity of life in our planet, its composition is roughly identical. All earthly life forms share a plasmatic membrane made of a bilayer of phospholipids in a fluid mosaic shape that grants polarization to interact with water and an apolar mean to regulate diffusion. Zooming in the structure of the cell, proteins are the actual sub unity responsible for making what life truly is, and all proteins are nothing but polymers, long chains of amino acids linked by peptidic bonding. And most impressively, there are a total of 20 amino acids on our planet. All proteins, all the fabric that encompasses all life forms on this planet, are basically different arrangements of these same 20 amino acids, like and infinitely looping jigsaw puzzle of 20 pieces. And most importantly, every life form produces its proteins through a very complicated synthesis mechanism that revolves around transcription and translation of information encoded on another set of polymers, this time made of more complex structure called nucleotides, made of s phosphate ion linked to a carbohydrate ring of 5 carbons (either a ribose or a deoxyribose depending on the position of one atom of oxygen) and nitrogenous base, which is basically a cyclical amide, carbons and nitrogens). Now comes the even more impressive part, unlike the amino acids, there are only 5 types of nitrogenous bases, adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine and uracil (although thymine and uracil are interchangeable between rna and dna) so basically all life on earth is decoded by a long ass chain of these four letters combined in different orders. For this, there are no exceptions, not even the infamous viruses escape from this pattern.

1/6

there are two kinds of evolution actually: one is the scientific theory. The other is a myth.

I call it a myth because it is, as I have said, the imaginative and not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’. Strictly speaking, there is, I confess, no such thing as ‘modern science’. There are only particular sciences, all in a state of rapid change, and sometimes inconsistent with one another. What the Myth uses is a selection from the scientific theories--a selection made at first, and modified afterwards, in obedience to imaginative and emotional needs. It is the work of the folk imagination, moved by its natural appetite for an impressive unity. It therefore treats its data with great freedom--selecting, slurring, expurgating, and adding at will.

2/6

In the science, Evolution is a theory about changes: in the Myth it is a fact about improvements. Thus a real scientist like Professor J.B.S. Haldane is at pains to point out that popular ideas of Evolution lay a wholly unjustified emphasis on those changes which have rendered creatures (by human standards) ‘better’ or more interesting. He adds, ‘We are therefore inclined to regard progress as the rule in evolution. Actually it is the exception, and for every case of it there are ten of degeneration.’ But the Myth simply expurgates the ten cases of degeneration. In the popular mind the word ‘Evolution’ conjures up a picture of things moving ‘onward and upwards’, and of nothing else whatsoever. And it might have been predicted that it would do so. Already, before science had spoken, the mythical imagination knew the kind of ‘Evolution’ it wanted. It wanted the Keatsian and Wagnerian kind: the gods superseding the Titans, and the young, joyous, careless, amorous Siegfried superseding the care-worn, anxious, treaty-entangled Wotan. If science offers any instances to satisfy that demand, they will be eagerly accepted. If it offers any instances that frustrate it, they will simply be ignored.

Again, for the scientist Evolution is purely a biological theorem. It takes over organic life on this planet as a going concern and tries to explain certain changes within that field. It makes no cosmic statements, no metaphysical statements, no eschatological statements. it tries to explain, say, how a species that once had wings came to lose them. It explains this by the negative effect of environment operating on small variations. It does not in itself explain the origin of organic life, nor of the variations, nor does it discuss the origin and validity of reason. Still less does it even attempt to tell you how the universe as a whole arose, or what it is, or whither it is tending.

3/6

But the Myth knows none of these reticences. Having first turned what was a theory of change into a theory of improvement, it then makes this a cosmic theory. Not merely terrestrial organisms but everything is moving ‘upwards and onwards’. Reason has ‘evolved’ out of instinct, virtue out of complexes, poetry out of erotic howls and grunts, civilization out of savagery, the organic out of the inorganic, the solar system out of some sidereal soup or traffic block. And conversely, reason, virtue, art and civilization as we now know them are only the crude or embryonic beginnings of far better things--perhaps Deity itself--in the remote future. For in the Myth, ‘Evolution’ (as the Myth understands it) is the formula for all existence. To exist means to be moving from the status of ‘almost zero’ to the status of ‘almost infinity’. To those brought up on the Myth nothing seems more normal, more natural, more plausible, than that chaos should turn to order, death into life, ignorance into knowledge. And with this we reach the full-blown Myth. It is one of the most moving and satisfying world dramas which have ever been imagined.

The drama proper is preceded by the most austere of all preludes; the infinite void and matter endlessly, aimlessly moving to bring forth it knows not what. Then by some millionth, millionth chance--what tragic irony!--the conditions at one point of space and time bubble up into that tiny fermentation which we call organic life. At first everything seems to be against the infant hero of our drama; just as everything always was against the seventh son or ill-used step-daughter in a fairy tale. But life somehow wins through. With incalculable sufferings, against all but insuperable obstacles, it spreads, it breeds, it complicates itself; from the amoeba up to the reptile, up to the mammal. Life (here comes the first climax) ‘wantons as in her prime'. This is the age of the monsters: dragons prowl the earth, devour one another, and die. Then the irresistible theme of the Younger Son or the Ugly Duckling is repeated. As the weak, tiny spark of life herself began amidst the beasts that are far larger and stronger than he, there comes forth a little, naked, shivering, cowering biped, shuffling, not yet fully erect, promising nothing: the product of another millionth, millionth chance. His name in this Myth is Man: elsewhere he has been the young Beowulf whom men at first thought a dastard, or the stripling David armed only with a sling against a mail-clad Goliath, or a Jack the Giant-Killer himself.. He thrives. He begins killing his giants. He becomes the Cave Man with his flints and his club, muttering and growling over his enemies’ bones, almost a brute and yet somehow able to invent art, pottery, language, weapons, cookery, and nearly everything else (his name in another story is Robinson Crusoe), dragging his screaming mate by her hair (I do not know exactly why), tearing his children to pieces in fierce jealousy until they are old enough to tear him, and cowering before the terrible gods whom he has invented in his own image.

My reason to argue is not to judge, I've made this clear. I also know that I am tasked with spreading the word of God, and how can I do so to any effect without defending it against opposing beliefs?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this next bit. That definition you gave, that mutations that are helpful stick, I would agree with. What I contest is that these mutations can account for the development of life over the ages. No amount of copy errors would allow a keylogger to develop into ransomware while maintaining viability as malware throughout. I accept micro-evolution, but do not believe macro-evolution follows.

4/6

But these were only growing pains. In the next act he has become true Man. He learns to master Nature. Science arises and dissipates the superstitions of his infancy. More and more he becomes the controller of his own fate. Passing hastily over the historical period (in it the upward and onward movement gets in places a little indistinct, but it is a mere nothing by the time-scale we are using) we follow our hero on into the future. See him in the last act, though not the last scene, of this great mystery. A race of demi-gods now rule the planet (in some versions, the galaxy). Man has become God. All is a blaze of glory. And now, mark well the final stroke of mythopoeic genius. It is only the more debased versions of the Myth that end here. For to end here is a little bathetic, even a little vulgar. If we stopped at this point the story would lack the highest grandeur. Therefore, in the best versions, the last scene reverses all. Arthur died: Siegfried died: Roland dies at Roncesvaux. Dusk steals darkly over the gods. All this time we have forgotten Mordred, Hagen, Ganilon. All this time Nature, the old enemy who only seemed to be defeated, has been gnawing away, silently, unceasingly, out of the reach of human power. The Sun will cool--all suns will cool--the whole universe will run down. Life (every form of life) will be banished without hope of return from every cubic inch of infinite space. All ends in nothingness. ‘Universal darkness covers all’. True to the shape of Elizabethan tragedy, the hero has swiftly fallen from the glory to which he slowly climbed: we are dismissed ‘in calm of mind, all passion spent’. It is indeed much better than Elizabethan tragedy, for it has a more complete finality. It brings us to the end not of a story, but of all possible stories: enden sah ich die welt.

>Same people who are lbgt friendly.
Agree with them that gays are an evolutionary dead end.
Say it's amazing how good works in mysterious ways.

5/6

I grew up believing in this Myth and have felt--I still feel--its almost perfect grandeur. Let no one say we are an unimaginative age: neither the Greeks nor the Norsemen ever invented a better story. Even to the present day, in certain moods, I could almost find it in my heart to wish that it was not mythical, but true. And yet, how could it be?

What makes it impossible that it should be true is not so much the lack of evidence for this or that scene in the drama or the fatal self-contradiction which runs right through it. The Myth cannot even get going without accepting a good deal from the real sciences. And the real sciences cannot be accepted for a moment unless rational inferences are valid: for every science claims to be a series of inferences from observed facts. It is only by such inferences that you can reach your nebulae and protoplasm and dinosaurs and sub-men and cave-men at all. Unless you start by believing that reality in the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you can have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any paleontology, any archeology. To reach the positions held by the real scientists--which are taken over by the Myth--you must, in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational--if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel--how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution?

When you sum these overwhelming similarities with speciation, the capacity of one species to generate other species through the slow but fierce mechanism of evolution, primarily mutations, and secondarily natural selection and geographic isolation, it becomes outstandingly obvious that the ancestors of our ancestors shared more than we can imagine. As biologists begin to draw the tree of life, a job Lineus is mostly famous for, we realized that we share more similarities with the species that are phylogenetic closer to us. The further one distance themself from their branch, the less similarities we find, until the point where the only similarities remaining are those basic biochemical components that I spoke about earlier. Which is, now, our only lasting relationship with the bacteria that roam the earth. Billions of years ago we had our common ancestor. It then gave "birth" to countless lineages, of witch only two survived. One of those lineages developed a core membrane isolating its genetic material from the rest of cytoplasm, which granted them a grand variety of advantages and new possibilities.
The other branch, which didn't developed the nuclear membrane, had limitations on their advancements. But still, they survived the evolutionary pressures that played over them, surviving up until now, just like us. But many others had not the same luck, succumbing over the many obstacles that nature settled in their way. That's where our extinct ancestors ceased to exist.

6/6

They say in effect ‘I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from biochemistry which results from physics’. But this is the same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’. The fact that some people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the difficulty, confirms one’s suspicion that we touch here a radical disease in their whole style of thought. But the man who does see it, is compelled to reject as mythical the cosmology in which most of us were brought up. That is has embedded in it many true particulars I do not doubt: but in its entirety, it simply will not do. Whatever the real universe may turn out to be like, it can’t be like that.

We mut be careful when discussing evolution with normal folk; there is great reason for the myths popularity. Both political parties could not exist without it. Businesses could not sell us a new phone or video game or tv every year if technology wasn't always 'improving' (whatever that means). We must always be on our guard and catch ourselves before going to far with the myth of evolution.

God bless

Here is the series of events which degenerate atheists want you to believe happened:

1) A giant explosion happened for no reason when a wave fluctuation happened and caused an imbalance between energy and negative energy (LOL) which spread countless trillions of tonnes of material over 13 billion light years in diameter.

2) All of this protomatter arbitrarily separated itself in to groups for no reason, all the light gasses formed stars and all the heavier elements formed planets and rocks.

3) After several billion years of being a deadly environment which is hostile to life and amino acids, some rocks evolved in to amino acids in this toxic environment.

4) Over a billion years those amino acids collected together and arranged themselves in to DNA for no reason.

5) This first life was bacteria and it eventually evolved in to fish.

6) The fish decided that it was too easy swimming in water, so half of them decided to flop on to land and see if they survived.

7) Half of the ones that survived out of water, mated and bred with each other and grew legs and lungs.

8) Fast forward a billion years and fish evolved in to dinosaurs, and then dinosaurs evolved in to birds.

9) A few monkeys randomly got larger brains and discovered the art of making tools for the purpose of tribal warfare.

10) 200,000 years after this, le black science man and Bill Nye the Bachelor of Engineering Guy are making TV shows while dancing around like buffoons to teach people they are stupid animals who are alive for no reason and are a collection of biological cells governed by random electrical impulses in their brains, yet they somehow are superior to Christians and have better morality, even though they change their opinions every single year and would accept Islam when their life is threatened

Lmao

...

I just want to point out to any Europeans that this is literally what American Christians believe. Majority of Americans doesn't believe in evolution whatsoever

> 1
The origin of the universe, just as the origin of life, is still an unanswered question. We have a fact: things exist. And so far many hypothesis of how they came into existence, with evidence that points towards a singularity of infinite density and no volume, that for unknown reasons begun to rapidly expand, and is doing so to this day. The expansion can actually be observable by anyone with a telescope and a minimal knowledge about doppler effect.
2 - it spread according to the laws of both, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics, which would better explain the movements of such monstrous plasmatic masses. Gravity pulled nearby nebulas together, birthing the first starts, that would later fuse hydrogen, the original element, 1 proton, one electron, into heavier isotopes and later heavier elements. Upon death, clouds of heavier elements were liberated into the void, only to condense into planetary formations and other heavy and denser celestial bodies. This can be observed in many ways, including, yes, our own system.
3- rocks didn't evolve into amino acids, which are not alive to begin with. The primitive earth atmosphere was composed of amonia, methane, water and carbon dioxide (NH3 CH4 H2O CO2). Bombed by powerful lightings, everlasting storm, unstopped solar radiation and extreme heat, a new compounds took shape in the primitive ocean. An asymmetrical carbon, linked to a hydrogen, an carboxylic acid, an amina and a radical that could be 20 different sets of hydrocarbons. So is born the amino acid, a molecule that has a very interesting property: it could bond with one another through a dehydration reaction called peptidic bonding, very stable and very versatile, allowing many different chains of amino acids to come into shape, and later form even greater chains that we would one day, billions of years later, call proteins. This process can be demonstrated in a laboratory.